Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Genetic Contributions to
Antisocial Personality and
Behavior: A Meta-Analytic
Review From an Evolutionary
Perspective
a
Christopher J. Ferguson
a
Texas A&M International University
Published online: 08 Jul 2010.
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the
information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform.
However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no
representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness,
or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views
expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and
are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the
Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with
primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any
losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages,
and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or
indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the
Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes.
Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan,
sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is
expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
Downloaded by [Universite De Paris 1] at 08:05 03 September 2013
The Journal of Social Psychology, 2010, 150(2), 160–180
Copyright © Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
CHRISTOPHER J. FERGUSON
The Journal of Social Psychology
Ferguson
ABSTRACT. Evidence from behavioral genetics supports the conclusion that a significant
amount of the variance in antisocial personality and behavior (APB) is due to genetic
contributions. Many scientific fields such as psychology, medicine, and criminal justice
struggle to incorporate this information with preexisting paradigms that focused exclu-
sively on external or learned etiology of antisocial behavior. The current paper presents a
meta-analytic review of behavioral genetic etiological studies of APB. Results indicated
that 56% of the variance in APB can be explained through genetic influences, with 11%
due to shared non-genetic influences, and 31% due to unique non-genetic influences. This
data is discussed in relation to evolutionary psychological theory.
Keywords: antisocial behavior, evolution, violence
160
Ferguson 161
maltreatment in the family. Results indicated that males with both a low-MAOA
activity genotype and exposure to maltreatment were significantly more likely to
exhibit child conduct disorder and adult antisocial behavior, including criminal
arrests, than were high-MAOA activity genotype males who had been similarly
maltreated. Although the low-MAOA genotype on its own did not increase
APB, it appears that its presence places individuals at risk for APB, which can
be triggered by maltreatment in the family. The presence of this gene on the
X-chromosome may also help explain why males are more aggressive, on aver-
age, than females, particularly if the low MAOA activity genotype is recessive in
Downloaded by [Universite De Paris 1] at 08:05 03 September 2013
nature. This finding related to the low-MAOA genotype has been replicated in
other studies (e.g., Nilsson et al., 2007; Kim-Cohen et al., 2006).
Retz, Retz-Junginger, Supprian, Thome, and Rosler (2004) found a relation-
ship between the serotonin transporter promoter gene (5-HTT) and impulsive
violence in a forensic sample of 153 males. Specifically, a deletion/insertion
polymorphism on this gene predicted impulsively violent behavior within this
population. In and of itself, polymorphism on this gene was not able to explain
the majority of violent behavior, but it appears that this gene may be one part of a
larger genetic puzzle.
It is important to point out that these single genes do not appear, in and of
themselves, to deterministically cause APB in the same sense that the HD gene
invariably leads to Huntington’s disease. Rather, these genes likely interact with
each other in ways that remain poorly understood. Further, there are likely
numerous other genes that are involved either directly or indirectly (i.e. via inter-
actions) that have yet to be identified. Finally, these studies demonstrate that
genetic vulnerability and exposure to family violence interact to lead to APB.
These studies are unable to inform us regarding the relative contribution of
genetic and non-genetic influences in explaining proportions of variance in the
etiology of APB. For this purpose, behavioral genetic procedures such as twin
and adoption studies have been employed as a means of gauging or estimating
the relative contribution of genetic and non-genetic influences in APB etiology.
Given that behavioral genetic studies of APB provide evidence for a signifi-
cant genetic contribution, it is somewhat surprising to find considerable resis-
tance to discussing or studying the evolution of APB or violence in the social
sciences. Arguably, modern social science has focused on “pitfalls” of modern
Downloaded by [Universite De Paris 1] at 08:05 03 September 2013
life such as media violence, toy guns, and Western values, although violence and
homicide rates are found to be high among non-advanced cultures without access
to these modern accruements (Buss & Shackelford, 1997). For instance, a bro-
chure on youth violence available from the American Psychological Associa-
tion’s Web site states that “There is no gene for violence. Violence is a learned
behavior . . .” (APA, 1996). Although the brochure goes on to suggest that genet-
ically influenced factors such as learning disabilities and impulsivity may interact
with learned violence, this brochure inaccurately suggests that genetics do not
directly contribute to violence. The brochure is outdated also in suggesting that
youth violence is on the rise, when in fact it has been on a precipitous decline for
15 years. Similarly, it has been noted that the National Institutes of Health have
de-emphasized genetic, evolutionary, or other biological studies of violence
behavior (Enserink, 2000). Critiques of biological theories of aggression are per-
haps epitomized by Berkowitz (1993), who claims that aggression has not been
linked to biological storage areas for an aggressive instinct, and that aggression is
normally provoked by external stimuli. From this perspective, aggression would
seem to only be biological if it were univariate, purposeless, and unprovoked.
Tooby and Cosmides (1992) argue that perspectives such as those of Berkowitz
are indicative of the “Standard Social Science Model” (SSSM), which postulates
the brain as a general-purpose learning device, devoid of content at birth, with
behavior solely a product of subsequent learning. By contrast, evolutionary
psychology views the brain as having evolved through countless generations of
environmental pressures, wherein certain largely pre-wired brain “modules” give
organisms in-born mechanisms for dealing with likely environmental stressors.
As for the reluctance of the psychological discipline to embrace the contributions
of evolutionary theory, three main reasons would appear to be relevant. The first of
these is simply a matter of dogma and indoctrination. Prior to the mid-20th century,
genetic explanations for behavior were common. However, difficulties in conducting
genetics research in humans and abuses of evolutionary theory, including eugenics
and the belief in racial differences in intelligence (Kamin, 1974) decreased the appeal
of evolutionary explanations for many. As environmental explanations (particularly
those focused on learning) gained prominence in psychology in the 20th century,
genetic theories of human behavior were largely repudiated in favor of environmental
theories. Arguably, this movement coincided with social changes in the United States
Ferguson 165
at that time, such as the increased influence of feminist theories. Which tended to
focus on the innate “sameness” of individuals rather than on innate differences.
Secondly, misunderstandings about the nature of how evolutionary theory
applies to human behavior may also increase resistance. Two common miscon-
ceptions about evolutionary psychology involve the “naturalistic fallacy” and
concerns with regards to biological hard determinism. Briefly, the naturalistic
fallacy is the belief (or fear) that if something is demonstrated to be due to
biology, then this provides moral justification for the behavior. Similarly, biolog-
ical hard determinism would imply that human behavior is due only to genetic
Downloaded by [Universite De Paris 1] at 08:05 03 September 2013
(or other biological) effects and is not influenced by the environment, nor open to
the effects of agency. However, evolutionary psychologists have indicated
clearly that they do not endorse either the naturalistic fallacy or biological hard
determinism (see Wilson, Dietrich, & Clark, 2003 for a discussion).
Finally, a qualitative difference exists between genetic causal influences and
non-genetic causal influences. If non-genetic influences (whether biological or
socialization) are demonstrated to cause a negative outcome, this observation
provides an evident solution, namely that removing the causal influence will
likely reduce the negative behavior. However, genetic influences that are shown
to cause a negative outcome cannot logically or ethically be removed. This may
be interpreted as suggesting that genetic causal influences offer no evident solu-
tion for negative behavior reduction; individuals may thus be reluctant to endorse
such research under this misimpression, as it appears to offer little hope for
behavioral change. However, blinding oneself to the influence of genetic ele-
ments on behavior, by necessity, blinds oneself also to gene/environment interac-
tion effects, which may offer some solutions for the reduction of negative
behavior. Understanding the genetic influences on behavior, and identifying
these genetic risks within individuals, may result in treatments that theoretically
could be targeted early and preventatively toward individuals who may have this
genetic risk. Understandably, discussion of these possibilities raises considerable
ethical concerns (see, for example, Williams, 1994). This is not to say that such
techniques may not prove to be useful in the future, but that great care must be
taken to ensure that any behavioral or medical interventions for violence preven-
tion are undertaken only under strict ethical guidelines. Put directly, we enter
problematic ethical territory once individuals are punished for crimes they have
not yet committed. Ultimately, it may be decided that such approaches are either
unpractical or wholly unethical. Nevertheless, even if that should be true, obser-
vations regarding the limits of the “practicality” of genetic effects on violence
should not be intertwined with discussions of the “truthfulness” of such effects.
competitive pressures such as mate selection and supply of resources (see Sagan
& Druyan, 1992 for a discussion).
Although aggression, in moderate amounts and in proportion to environmen-
tal threats, may be beneficial, high levels of aggression may clearly be “too much
of a good thing” phenotypically speaking. High levels of aggression may place
an individual at extreme risk for harm or may result in social rejection and
depriving the individual of the benefits of social groups, the development of
which also likely contributes to the survivability of individual hominid organ-
isms. Therefore, an individual may benefit not only from being aggressive, but
Downloaded by [Universite De Paris 1] at 08:05 03 September 2013
Method
PsycINFO was searched for all articles published between the years of 1996
and 2006 (this criterion discussed below) that included the following search
terms: (adopt* or twin or heritabil* or behavior genetic* or behavioral genetic*)
and (violen* or violent crim* or crim* or aggress* or antisocial). The references
of primary sources revealed in this search were also examined for studies that
were not discovered during this initial search.
Articles were judged relevant if they met the following criteria:
(a) Articles had to have been published between the years of 1996–2006
(effectively an 11-year publication period). Limiting meta-analyses to
more recent research allows for an examination of recent trends in the
literature, in which methods may have improved over past years.
(b) Outcome variables had to clearly measure some element of antisocial,
violent, or aggressive behavior. Criteria were essentially identical
to those Rhee and Waldman (2002) discuss in depth.
(c) Articles had to include methodology (i.e., twin or adoption) for
determining relative contributions of genetic and non-genetic influences
in APB.
A total of 38 published studies comprised of 53 separate observations (some
studies broke down results by gender, some did not) were found that met the
Ferguson 169
above criteria. The combined sample size for the included articles was 96,918.
Articles in the current study were coded for the presence of several potential
moderator variables, namely: (a) Age (below age twelve, twelve to eighteen and
above eighteen), (b) Sex, (c) Whether the outcome variables clearly used
measures of antisocial personality disorder according to DSM-IV criteria, indices
of violent behavior such as police reports or self-reported violent criminal activ-
ity, or broader measures of violent or aggressive behaviors as found in clinical
measures of behavior disorders related to aggression.
Downloaded by [Universite De Paris 1] at 08:05 03 September 2013
Pearson’s r, a flexible and easily interpreted index of effect size, was used as
the effect size estimate in this study. Correlation coefficients were transformed to
Fisher’s z, weighted, averaged and transformed back to a pooled r, denoted r+.
The Comprehensive Meta-Analysis (CMA) software program was used to fit
fixed effects models. Once the combined effect sizes were calculated for genetic,
shared non-genetic and unique non-genetic variance components, these were
transformed back to (h2), (c2) and (e2) variance estimates. Due to rounding dur-
ing the effect size calculation process it is likely that the final total variance may
differ slightly from 100%. Table 1 presents all included studies, effect sizes for
(h2), (c2) and (e2) in terms of r and characterization on moderator variables.
Results
Table 2 presents the results from the meta-analysis on the entire group of
studies broken down by genetic, shared non-genetic, and unique non-genetic
variance components. As can be seen, genetic influences account for the largest
component of the variance in APB, with 56% explained, shared non-genetic
influences explaining 11% of the variance in APB, and unique non-genetic influ-
ences explaining 31%. These results indicate that genetics is a significant con-
tributor to APB, but that non-genetic influences also remain important. Tests of
homogeneity indicate the presence of moderator variables.
(Continued)
Ferguson 171
TABLE 1. (Continued)
(Continued)
172 The Journal of Social Psychology
TABLE 1. (Continued)
TABLE 1. (Continued)
Note. All studies are listed by first author last name and year. Manuscripts with multiple
analyses (including analyses separated by gender) are delineated numerically after the
date. Mixed = mixed sex sample.
174 The Journal of Social Psychology
of variance explained.
0.8
0.7
0.6
Effect Sizer
0.5
Genetic
0.4 Shared Non-Genetic
0.3 Unique Non-Genetic
0.2
0.1
0
Child Adolescent Adult
Age
Results for shared non-genetic influences did not reveal significant moderat-
ing effects for measure used (r = .06), age (r = −.05) or sex (r = .12). Results for
unique non-genetic influences did reveal significant moderators. Not surpris-
ingly, these effects were opposite those for genetic influences with a significant
correlation with type of measurement used (r = −.54, p ≤ .01) and age (r = .59,
p < .01). Sex was not a significant moderator (r = −.06, p ≥ .05). Thus unique
non-genetic influences are higher on measurements that use stricter DSM-IV cri-
teria for antisocial personality disorder and for older individuals.
Results for the age moderator are particularly worthy of consideration.
Figure 1 presents changes in effect size for genetic, shared non-genetic, and
unique non-genetic effects across child, adolescent, and adult groups in terms of
effect size r+. As can be seen, the influence of both genetic and shared non-
genetic influences decreases into adulthood, whereas the influence of unique
Ferguson 175
the influence of genetic factors on APB depends somewhat at what point in the
lifespan APB is examined. As unique non-genetic factors accumulated across
time in the individual lifespan, naturally their influence on behavior increases.
Genetic factors, being essentially unchanging, remain fairly static by comparison.
Discussion
Results from the current study highlight both the genetic effects and non-
genetic effects on APB. As can be seen, genetic influences account for a consid-
erable percentage of the variance. Understanding the development of these
genetic factors from an evolutionary perspective allows us to understand the
ultimate causal processes that lead to the development of APB. Shared non-
genetic influences, which arguably are a reasonable indicator of family socializa-
tion (although other environmental influences that cause direct biological insults
may also be part of this variance) has the smallest influence on APB. It is worth
mentioning however, that 11% of the variance in APB is still a considerable
percentage and worthy of attention, particularly as this portion of the variance
may be particularly amenable to prevention or intervention.
Unique non-genetic influences accounted for about a third of the variance in
APB. As this portion of the variance includes non-genetic biological influences
such as head injuries and infections, non-family socialization processes, and
potential agency effects (Bandura, 2006) this portion of the variance is most dif-
ficult to interpret. As such, until studies undertake to measure specific potential
influences on APB, this portion of the variance may best be considered
“unknown” variance, aside from the fact that we know it is variance that is
unique to individuals and not due to shared influences. Utilizing specific mea-
sures of family violence exposure, family environment, peer relations, medical
history, etc., as part of twin studies may help in elucidating the specific contribu-
tions of each of these potential non-genetic influences in the development of
APB. Several studies have already begun to adopt such procedures (e.g., Caspi
et al., 2004).
Results from this analysis are generally consistent with literature indicating
that genetic contributions are an important influence in the development of APB
(Larsson, Andershed, & Lichtenstein, 2006). As indicated earlier in the paper,
176 The Journal of Social Psychology
AUTHOR NOTE
REFERENCES
Note. *Article included in meta-analysis.
American Psychological Association. (1996). An APA brochure on youth violence.
Retrieved February 2, 2007, from http://www.apa.org/ppo/issues/pbviolence.html
*Arseneault, L., Moffitt, T., Caspi, A., Taylor, A., Rijsdijk, F., & Jaffee, S., et al. (2003).
Strong genetic effects on cross-situational antisocial behaviour among 5-year-old
children according to mothers, teachers, examiner-observers, and twins’ self-reports.
Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 44, 832–848.
Ferguson 177
personality traits: Heritability and genetic overlap with internalizing and externalizing
psychopathology. Psychological Medicine, 35, 637–648.
*Brendgen, M., Vitaro, F., Boivin, M., Dionne, G., & Perusse, D. (2006). Examining
genetic and environmental effects on reactive versus proactive aggression. Develop-
mental Psychology, 42, 1299–1312.
*Brendgen, M., Dionne, G., Girard, A., Boivin, M., Vitaro, F., & Perusse, D. (2005).
Examining genetic and environmental effects on social aggression: A study of 6-year-old
twins. Child Development, 76, 930–946.
*Bullock, B., Deater-Deckard, K., & Leve, L. (2006). Deviant peer affiliation and prob-
lem behavior: A test of genetic and environmental influences. Journal of Abnormal
Child Psychology, 34, 29–41.
Buss, D., & Shackelford, T. (1997). Human aggression in evolutionary psychological
perspective. Clinical Psychology Review, 17, 605–619.
*Button, T., Scourfield, J., Martin, N., Purcell, S., & McGuffin, P. (2005). Family dysfunc-
tion interacts with genes in the causation of antisocial symptoms. Behavior Genetics, 35,
115–120.
Caspi, A., McClay, J., Moffitt, T., Mill, J., Martin, J., Craig, I., et al. (2002). Role of geno-
type in the cycle of violence in maltreated children. Science, 297, 851–854.
Caspi, A., Moffitt, T., Morgan, J., Rutter, M., Taylor, A., Arseneault, L., et al. (2004).
Maternal expressed emotion predicts children’s antisocial behavior problems: Using
monozygotic twin differences to identify environmental effects on behavioral develop-
ment. Developmental Psychology, 40, 149–161.
Critchley, H.D., Simmons, A., Daly, E.M., Russell, A., van Amelsvoort, T., Robertson,
D.M., et al. (2000). Prefrontal and medial temporal correlates of repetitive violence to
self and others. Biological psychiatry, 47(10), 928–34.
*Cleveland, H. (2003). Disadvantaged neighborhoods and adolescent aggression: Behavioral
genetic evidence of contextual effects. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 14, 211–238.
*Coccaro, E., Bergeman, C., Kavoussi, R., & Seroczynski, A. (1997). Heritability of
aggression and irritability: A twin Study of the Buss-Durkee Aggression Scales in adult
male subjects. Biological Psychiatry, 41, 273–284.
Davidson, R., Putnam, K., & Larson, C. (2000). Dysfunction in the neural circuitry of
emotion regulation—a possible prelude to violence. Science, 289, 591–594.
Donovan, W., & Ferraro, R. (1999). Frontal lobe deficits in domestic violence offenders.
Genetic, Social and General Psychology Monographs, 125, 71–102.
*Eley, T., Lichtenstein, P., & Moffitt, T. (2003). A longitudinal behavioral genetic analy-
sis of the etiology of aggressive and non-aggressive antisocial behavior. Development
and Psychology, 15, 383–402.
*Eley, T., Lichtenstein, P., & Stevenson, J. (1999). Sex differences in the etiology of
aggressive and non-aggressive antisocial behavior: Results from two twin studies. Child
Development, 70, 155–168.
178 The Journal of Social Psychology
Enserink, M. (2000). Searching for the mark of Cain. Science, 289, 575–579.
Ferguson, C. J., Rueda. S., Cruz, A., Ferguson, D., Fritz, S., & Smith, S. (2008). Violent
video games and aggression: Causal relationship or byproduct of family violence and
intrinsic violence motivation? Criminal Justice and Behavior, 35, 311–332.
Ferguson, C.J. (2007). Evidence for publication bias in video game violence effects litera-
ture: A meta-analytic review. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 12, 470–482.
*Gelhorn, H., Stallings, M., Young, S., Corley, R., Rhee, S., Hopfer, C., et al. (2006).
Common and specific gene influences on aggressive and non-aggressive conduct
disorder domains. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychia-
try, 45, 570–577.
*Gjone, H., & Stevenson, J. (1997). A longitudinal twin study of temperament and
Downloaded by [Universite De Paris 1] at 08:05 03 September 2013
*Ligthart, L., Bartels, M., Hoekstra, R., Hudziak, J., & Boomsma, D. (2005). Genetic con-
tributions to subtypes of aggression. Twin Research and Human Genetics, 8, 483–491.
*Malone, S., Taylor, J., Marmorstein, N., McGue, M., & Iacono, W. (2004). Genetic and
environmental influences on antisocial behavior and alcohol dependence from adoles-
cence to early adulthood. Development and Psychopathology, 16, 943–966.
*McGue, M., Iacono, W., & Krueger, R. (2006). The association of early adolescent prob-
lem behavior and adult psychopathology: A multivariate behavioral genetic perspective.
Behavioral Genetics, 36, 591–602.
Mercer, K., & Selby, M. (2005). The effects of psychopathy, violence and drug use on
neuropsychological functioning. American Journal of Forensic Psychology, 23, 65–86.
Miles, D., & Carey, G. (1997). Genetic and environmental architecture on human aggres-
Downloaded by [Universite De Paris 1] at 08:05 03 September 2013
Tedeschi, J., & Quigley, B. (1996). Limitations of laboratory paradigms for studying
aggression. Aggression & Violent Behavior, 2, 163–177.
Terpstra, D. (1981). Relationship between methodological rigor and reported outcomes in
organization development evaluation research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 66, 541–543.
Thapar, A., Langley, K., Fowler, T., Rice, F., Turic, D., Whittinger, N., et al. (2005).
Catechol O-Methyltransferase gene variant and birth weight predict early-onset antiso-
cial behavior in children with Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder. Archives of
General Psychiatry, 62, 1275–1278.
*Thapar, A., & McGuffin, P. (1996). A twin study of antisocial and neurotic symptoms in
childhood. Psychological Medicine, 26, 1111–1118.
Tinbergen, N. (1963). On aims and methods of ethology. Zeitschrift fur Tierpsychologie,
Downloaded by [Universite De Paris 1] at 08:05 03 September 2013
20, 410–433.
Tooby, J., & Cosmides, L. (1992). The psychological foundations of culture. In J. Barkow,
L. Cosmides & J. Tooby. (Eds.), The adapted mind: Evolutionary psychology and the
generation of culture (pp. 19–36). New York: Oxford University Press.
*Tuvblad, C., Eley, T., & Lichtenstein, P. (2005). The development of antisocial behavior
from childhood to adolescence: A longitudinal twin study. European Journal of Child
and Adolescent Psychiatry, 14, 216–225.
*Tuvblad, C., Grann, M., & Lichtenstein, P. (2006). Heritability for adolescent antisocial
behavior differs with socioeconomic status: Gene-environment interaction. Journal of
Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 47, 734–743.
*van Beijsterveldt, C., Bartels, M., Hudziak, J., & Boomsma, D. (2003). Causes of
stability of aggression from early childhood to adolescence: A longitudinal genetic
analysis in Dutch twins. Behavioral Genetics, 33, 591–605.
*Viding, E., James, R., Blair, R., Moffitt, T., & Plomin, R. (2005). Evidence for substan-
tial genetic risk for psychopathy in 7-year-olds. Journal of Child Psychology and
Psychiatry, 46, 592–597.
*Vierikko, E., Pulkkinen, L., Kaprio, J., Viken, R., & Rose, R. (2003). Sex differences in
genetic and environmental effects on aggression. Aggressive Behavior, 29, 55–68.
*Vierikko, E., Pulkkinen, L., Kaprio, J., & Rose, R. (2006). Genetic and environmental
sources of continuity and change in teacher-rated aggression during early adolescence.
Aggressive Behavior, 29, 308–320.
Williams, J. (1994). Violence, genes and prejudice. Discover Magazine. Retrieved
January 14, 2007, from http://discovermagazine.com/1994/nov/violencegenesand446
Wilson, D., Dietrich, E., & Clark, A. (2003). On the inappropriate use of the naturalistic
fallacy in evolutionary psychology. Biology and Philosophy, 18, 669–682.